water SEPTEMBER 2012 5
from the chief executive
This edition of Water Journal again reflects the diversity of
challenges facing our sector and the outstanding work that is
proceeding to deliver world--class solutions. Principal themes
for this issue include Membrane Technology, Sustainable Water
Management and Water Reuse.
Of particular interest is the focus on "Indirect Potable Reuse"
(IPR), a topic that presents particular challenges to the water
industry, not least a lack of understanding among consumers
and a prevailing negative perception of the concept. In this issue
we present a general overview of the overseas scene written by
Principal Technologist John Poon from CH2M HILL, a My Point
of View by reuse expert, Linda Macpherson, and two technical
papers: 'Achieving Drinking Water Reuse Without Reverse
Osmosis'; and 'Human Health-Based Chemical Guidelines
in Purified Recycled Water'.
Continuing the theme, we follow in the next issue with
a discussion of AWA's position on IPR, an overview of the
Australian scene, three papers covering Regulation, Processes
and Attitudinal Change, respectively, as well as a long overdue
and timely discourse on terminology. As the Journal editorial team
was putting together this issue, the long-standing controversy
over the nomenclature used by the sector flared again -- hence
the reference to IPR in quotation marks.
Why is terminology so important? There is no doubt that
the words we use are instrumental in framing our perceptions.
According to Linda Macpherson, "the use of words that magnify
fears is invariably more powerful than countervailing efforts
to emphasise facts". This is not about PR "spin" -- it's about
effective communication and enabling conversations that build
understanding. For the sector to engage and engender public
confidence on recycled water, we need to communicate in terms
that are easily understood and consistent throughout the industry.
"Indirect Potable Reuse" is, frankly, not a term that meets these
criteria. For a start, a high proportion of the community does not
understand the term "potable water"; the reference to "indirect" is
not meaningful; and "reuse" fails to mention that it is highly treated
recycled water. One suggestion from Linda Macpherson is that we
should start talking about "Purified Recycled Water".
AWA has supported the greater uptake of recycled water by
Australian communities for many years now, including potential
applications for returning purified recycled water to drinking
supplies. The rationale is certainly there. Even as we squelch
through muddy fields and gardens on the east coast, the
Bureau of Meteorology is warning us of a likely return to
a drier El Niño scenario. Although the dry may not strike this
summer, we know from experience that our climate dictates
that dry conditions will return. We must, therefore, continue to
explore every option to diversify our water supplies. Following
nature's own cycle and returning purified water to our supplies
will often represent the least community cost and require less
energy than alternatives. Critically, we have the technology
and systems to guarantee the quality and safety of this water.
So, what's the problem? Paradoxically, the community is
both a supporter and a cynic. While the concept of recycling
generally draws considerable public support, using it for
drinking purposes draws more emotive responses and, as we
reach each critical decision point in implementation, it turns
into the proverbial political football. When it comes time to
differentiate oneself from one's political opponent, or when a
headline is needed, recycling seems to be an easy target. Also,
we don't make it easy for ourselves. Sadly, other (arguably)
unrelated events impacting the sector can erode confidence
in our ability to manage a sensitive issue like recycling. The
lengthy public disquiet over industry reforms in South-East
Queensland and the more recent outrage over the "premature
recovery" of desalination plant costs in Melbourne have
contributed to declining community trust in the sector overall.
A good start to tackling this issue would be bi-partisan
support including an acknowledgement by our major political
parties of the industry's competence and the criticality of this
issue; however, ultimately this conversation must be between
the industry and the community. It is up to us to engage, rebuild
trust and inspire confidence. The public is right to expect our
assurance of their health and safety.
Using consistent and meaningful terminology will help
and AWA will also play its part. We have initiated an important
collaboration with WSAA and the WaterReuse Association
and, next year, we will be jointly presenting the Asia Pacific
Recycling Conference in Brisbane. With the support of the
Australian Water Recycling Centre of Excellence this event will
draw together some of the best researchers and practitioners
from Australia, the US and around the world.
Failing to deliver on the possibilities in recycling would be
an "Opportunity Lost" -- perhaps not quite of the same epic
proportions as John Milton's classic poem Paradise Lost --
but a tragic loss nevertheless.
Recycling Need Not Be
An Opportunity Lost
Tom Mollenkopf -- AWA Chief Executive